BEFORE
THE COURT are Plaintiffs Motion to Seal (Dkt. 44)
and Defendant Barnett's Brief Regarding Plaintiffs Motion
for Leave to File Under Seal (Dkt. 45). For the reasons
stated in the Order dated August 21, 2017 in Jacobs v.
Barnett No. 8:16-cv-2489-T-27MAP (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21,
2017) attached as Exhibit A, the motion to seal (Dkt. 44) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. Plaintiff shall file all
remaining, unfiled exhibits to his responses to
Defendants' motions for summary judgment as a separate
docket entry by 5:00 P.M. EDT on Thursday, August 24,
2017, pursuant to the following instructions: (1)
Plaintiff shall file the "Crossbow Claims Chart"
with all names and other personal identifying
information of third parties redacted;[1]and (2) Plaintiff
shall file the remaining exhibits identified in the
appendices in support of his responses to Defendants'
motions for summary judgment, without redaction.

DONE
AND ORDERED.

ORDER

BEFORE
THE COURT are Plaintiffs Motion to Seal (Dkt. 45) and
Defendant Barnett's Brief Regarding Plaintiffs Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal (Dkt. 46). Upon consideration, the
motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.

Defendant
Barnett Outdoors, LLC ("Barnett") and Defendants
Synergy Outdoors, LLC and Wildgame Innovations, LLC filed
respective motions for summary judgment. (Dkts. 26, 27).
Plaintiff responded in opposition to both motions. (Dkts. 36,
37). He moved for leave to file the following exhibits to his
responses under seal: "Crossbow Claims Chart";
"Interoffice email dated November 4, 2013";
"Academy Sports Outdoors E-Commerce Vendor
Agreement"; "Interoffice emailed [sic] dated March
5, 2013"; "crossbow drawings and interoffice
emails"; and "Crossbow Modification Timeline."
(Dkt. 38 at p. 2). Barnett responded with a brief asserting
that only two of those exhibits, the Claims Chart and the
Modification Timeline, were of such a sensitive nature that
they needed to be filed under seal. (Dkt. 39). The motion to
seal was denied without prejudice for failure to comply with
Local Rule 1.09(a). (Order, Dkt. 44).

Plaintiff
filed a second motion to seal requesting that he be permitted
to file the Claims Chart and Modification Timeline under seal
and that the seal be for a duration of one year. (Dkt. 45).
According to Plaintiff, he "does not concede that the
documents in question are necessarily sensitive in nature,
" but he felt "compelled to file this Motion to
Seal so as not to violate" a confidentiality agreement
with Barnett. (Id. at p. 8 n.2). Plaintiff argues
that it is necessary for him to file the Claims Chart because
it establishes "Barnett's knowledge that
inadequately guarded crossbows cause injury to its users,
" which is material to his punitive damages claim.
(Id. at pp. 5-6). He argues that the Modification
Timeline is material, in that it shows the feasibility of
adding safety features to the product and Barnett's
knowledge of the need to add safety features. (Id.,
at p, 7). Because Barnett is the party with the primary
interest in maintaining the confidentiality of those
documents, it addressed the need for sealing those documents
in its brief. (Barnett's Brief, Dkt. 46).

Barnett
contends that it is not necessary to file either the Claims
Chart or the Modification Timeline because they are not
relevant to Plaintiffs claims and, in the alternative, the
Claims Chart is unduly prejudicial. (Id. at pp.
4-5). According to Barnett, the chart "identifies each
and every individual ever to have made a claim" of an
incident involving a Barnett crossbow, "including those
who did so confidentially to the U.S. Consumer Products
Safety Commission, " ( Id. at p. 4). While
Barnett contends that there are no means other than sealing
available because "simply redacting the names does not
remove the confidential nature of the Chart, " it did
not offer further explanation. (Motion to Seal, Dkt. 45 at p.
9). As for the Modification Timeline, Barnett asserts that it
should be sealed because it "was created by Barnett
engineers to detail each engineering change to the various
crossbow models overtime" and it "contains
information that is sensitive to Barnett, as its disclosure
would provide detailed engineering information to
Barnett's competitors." (Barnett's Brief, Dkt.
46 at p, 5). Barnett argues that the timeline "is not
the type of document that would be subject to redaction"
because "all content on the Timeline is
proprietary." (Motion to Seal, Dkt. 45 at p. 9).

Trial
courts have the inherent authority and discretion to seal
records. Nixon v. Warner Commc'tis, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 598-99 (1978). Decisions on motions to seal must
balance the public's common law right of access against
the interests favoring confidentiality. See id at
597-99. The common law right of access is implicated by any
pretrial motion that requires judicial resolution of the
merits, including summary judgment motions, and can be
overcome only by a showing of "good cause."
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,263F.3d 1304, 1311-13 (11th Cir. 2001) (per
curiam).[1]

The
"good cause" standard requires the trial court to
"balance the respective interests." Id. at
1313. Whether good cause exists depends on the nature and
character of the information in question. Romero,
480 F.3d at 1246. In balancing the public interest in access
to court documents against a party's interest in keeping
the information confidential, courts consider

whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm
legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of
injury if made public, the reliability of the information,
whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the
information, whether the information concerns public
officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less
onerous alternative to sealing the documents.

Id. (citations omitted).

The
Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida also prescribe
the contents of a motion to seal. The movant must include:

(i) an identification and description of each item proposed
for sealing; (ii) the reason that filing each item is
necessary; (iii) the reason that sealing each item is
necessary; (iv) the reason that a means other than sealing is
unavailable or unsatisfactory to preserve the interest
advanced by the movant in support of the seal; (v) a
statement of the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.